‘Victory of secular forces’

April 30, 2001

Kanpur, May 2, 2001

Warm greetings from Sakhi Kendra, India! You might be aware of the violence that broke out in Kanpur during the month of March 2001.

Actually, for three–four months before the out–break of violence, there was some tension in the city but the administration and police chose to ignore the developments. Just one day before the outbreak of violence i.e. on March 15, 2001, a few hooligans made an attempt to burn an effigy as a protest against rumours of the burning of the Quran in Delhi, when the police stopped them. To enforce their will, a bomb was flung on inspector Suresh Chandra Badhauria of Beconganj police station. One week before this incident, volunteers of the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) plastered posters and leaflets regarding the incident of the burning of the Quran, in Anwarganj, Chamanganj, Beconganj, Bajariya, Meston Road and other sensitive areas of Kanpur. This created tension and inflamed sentiments but the police and administration chose not to pay attention and not to intervene.

It was only when this procession reached the Shikshak Park, Naveen Market and tried to burn an effigy of the Prime Minister that the police intervened… As is usual during communal riots, the police gave a go–by to lawful conduct and instead of first scattering the mob with the use of tear gas, began indiscriminately firing.

According to official figures, 25 were killed, 8 are missing and 50 persons are injured. Unofficial investigations reveal that 100-200 persons have sustained bullet injuries and with as many as ninety per cent of those injured having injuries above the waist.

Though fundamentalists from the Hindu community also tried to give communal flare to this incident, they were utterly unsuccessful.

The police supported the communal criminals (belonging to the majority community) and there is evidence of this: The bangles’ market and shoe markets, where a majority of the shops are owned by Muslims was gutted down and though the these markets are located just behind the kotwali (the main police station of the city/control room) where a large police force is available all the time, the destruction was neither averted nor stopped. Incidentally these areas have never been targeted before during previous riots; they cannot therefore be categorised as communally sensitive localities.In order to raise issues related to the welfare of the victims of violence, we have formed the Kanpur Citizen’s Council. Members of this council met the police commissioner on April 3, 2001 and put our concerns before the administration. These are:

Those students who have missed their examinations because of the imposition of curfew should be allowed to give their examinations;
An accurate assessment of losses incurred should be made and reparation and compensation paid in accordance with the loss.
A regular occurrence during communal violence is that the police fails in its primary duty towards citizens by failing to register complaints. Hence the Kanpur Citizen’s Council has taken the initiative of visiting various areas, establishing complaint complaint camps in different localities to collect complaints. The police commissioner has assured us that the district magistrate or the ADM will be present at these camps and that these complaints will be registered and treated as an FIR. Already, on April 5 and 7, two complaint camps were held at which nearly 100 complaints were registered. Most of these complaints were not registered by the police. Others were complaints, which had been registered but had no action taken by the police or the administration. The KCC is following up each of these complaints with the police.
We have asked the administration to gather the complete records of persons missing, injured and killed during violence.
Members of the KCC have decided to hold survey on the basis of government survey in order to get an accurate picture of the violence.
During the violence, many innocent people have been indiscriminately arrested and hence the KCC has placed it’s demand with the administration that these people should be released forthwith We also took out a peace march under the banner of Manav Sadbhavana Abhiyan (a combined platform of activists and organizations of Kanpur) to convey a message of peace, solidarity and harmony.

Thanks to some of these combined interventions by the citizens of Kanpur, the administration has admitted that the violence was not communal violence but occurred because of the failure or the lack of desire to intervene. This admission itself is a victory for secular forces.

Neelam Chaturvedi

Sakhi Kendra, Kanpur, (India).

Archived from Communalism Combat, May 2001 Year 8 No. 69, Open Letter

Hidden apartheid

March 31, 2001

From August 31– September 4, when the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance, Xenopho bia and Related Intolerances(WCAR) meets in Durban, the first time since the discriminatory and centuries old regime of apartheid was overturned through much sacrifice and struggle in that country, another group of subordinated peoples, discriminated by descent and occupation, forcibly segregated by tradition and religion from access to common resources, will make their voice heard before the international community.

They will demand that caste-based discrimination, which amounts to descent and occupation based oppression, segregation and exclusion be recognised as a distinct form of racism. A distinct form of racism, because it amounts to the denial of basic human rights based on prejudice, discrimination or antagonism and is justified by well–entrenched beliefs about high and low, superior and inferior.

A wide network of Dalit groups from within and outside India will voice this demand on behalf of 160 million Indians. They will make their case through public testimonies of victims and documents drawn up by the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights — NCDHR.

Predictably, there have been strong attempts by the Indian government to resist the bid to raise the issue of caste discrimination in an international forum. At the preparatory meeting for the WCAR, on February 19 in Teheran, the government made it’s stand clear — introducing caste into the ambit of the WCAR at Durban would amount to diluting the concept of racism. The government delegation was represented, among others, by the attorney general, Soli Sorabjee. More significantly perhaps, government spokesmen stressed that the problem of caste was an ‘internal’ one and therefore out of the purview of the UN.

Using his weekly column in The Times of India, (March 4, 2001) to emphasise the government’s position, Sorabjee endorsed the overall rationale behind the theme of the forthcoming conference;an acknowledgement that “no country is immune from the virus of racism whose roots lie in the hearts and the minds of the people”. He mentioned the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ECERD) convention but commented on the “misconceived attempts by some NGOs to equate racism with caste–based discrimination which is based on birth and occupation and has nothing to do with the race of a person.” Our Constitution, he said, recognises the distinction between race and caste, which are separately mentioned as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

In stark contrast to the Indian governmental position was the Nepal government’s candour on the same issue, confronted as it is with recent assertions of Nepali Dalits who account for not less than 15 per cent of the total population. The government of the only Hindu kingdom in the world openly admitted that caste is the source of acute discrimination and segregation within Nepal. This, it held, was a serious issue that falls under the theme of the forthcoming conference and should, therefore, form part of the official deliberations at the WCAR at Durban.

Apart from the Indian government, several academics, individuals and groups have also voiced serious concern over what, in their perception, is a Dalit move to link caste to race. This, according to them, is a dangerous move that would lead to a revival of the theory of race that resulted in “Hitler’s disastrous racial policies” and that was discounted decades ago (anthropologist Andre Beteille in The Hindu, March 12).

According to Beteille, “interested parties within and outside the UN would like to bring caste discrimination in general and the practice of untouchability in particular within the purview of racial discrimination… The practice of untouchability is indeed reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all; but that does not mean that we must begin to regard it as a form of racial discrimination. The Scheduled Castes of India taken together are no more a race than are the Brahmins taken together. Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect it against prejudice and discrimination… We cannot throw out the concept of race by the front door when it is misused for asserting social superiority and bring it again through the back door to misuse it in the cause of the oppressed. The metaphor of race is a dangerous weapon whether it is used for asserting white supremacy or making demands on the basis of disadvantaged groups.”(Emphasis added).

There are two substantive issues involved here. One is the theoretical rejection and support for Dalit demands by not just academics but other groups and individuals, movements and formations on the lines that Beteille argues. The other is the resistance to any attempt to take the issue of caste–based discrimination to a global forum; to solicit international condemnation of caste–based discriminatory practices and support for the struggle against it.

Put together, both amount to attempts to distort and thereby contain efforts by the Dalit movement to seek international focus and attention on caste based discrimination, legitimised for centuries through scripture and followed in practice by notions of high and low, superior and inferior, pure an impure. Even half a century after independence, the problem continues. The Dalit condition, which was the result of such a pernicious theory, is the result of a pernicious understanding of race by perpetrators of this condition and not the other way around. It is not the metaphor of race that is being invoked but the metaphor of racism, which was the outcome of the misplaced metaphor of race.

The re–emergence of a vibrant and vocal Dalit movement (after the Dalit Panther movement of the seventies) in the mid-eighties and early nineties has formed the backbone of the national campaign whose demands are now being heard. The systematic campaigns (see box), documentation and theorisation that have emerged reflect the painful reality of 160 million Indians (not counting Dalits of other religious denominations) even 54 years after political independence and democracy.

Even the dictionary meaning of the word racism, (Shorter Oxford: racism is the belief in or adherence to, by the perpetrators not the victims — advocacy of the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities qualities etc specific to their race distinguishing as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination or antagonism based on this), needs to hark to the theory of race to describe it’s consequences — the condition of racism described as antagonistic or prejudicial or discriminatory. Moreover, within political science and sociology circles, racism has come to typify and describe systems of inequality and discrimination.

The condition of 20 million Dalits more than fulfils the description of the conditions used to describe racism. The term is now being invoked to show how the same kind of dehumanising prerequisites (in terms of definition) that are used to describe, understand and protest against racism are more than fulfilled (thousand times over) when we speak of untouchability and caste–based discrimination.

Is it not time that we fill and feed such terminology with our own histories and thereby deepen their meanings?

To argue that caste-based discrimination — through exclusion, dehumanisation, segregation, violent atrocities and practices — is a distinct form of racism is surely not out of a desire to dangerously re-introduce, as Beteille seems to argue, the theory of race. Rather, the intention is to emphasise that despite the ostensible world wide rejection of the theory of race, even today, a fifth of the population in South Asia has to endure bitter prejudice, segregation, exclusion and discrimination legitimised by a tradition of superior and inferior, pure and impure. (In any case, the supposed rejection of the theory of race is obviously restricted to limited circles, as even today neo-Nazi squads in the West are a grim pointer to the awesome gap between theory and lived experience. )

The very theory of the atishudra — that even now, in the twenty- first century excludes an entire segment of men, women and children out of the Hindu caste fold, but controls this section through an elaborate system of exploitation, economic, social and political — is a theory of superior and the mleccha, the pure and the impure. The millions so exploited are used for backbreaking manual and menial tasks. Worst of all, they are even excluded from discourse, from the mind’s eye.

To state that caste, descent and occupation-based discrimination is a distinct form of racism is to evocatively highlight the depth and details of the sub–human conditions that a fifth of the population of India is forced to endure — through segregation, exclusion and discrimination, hierarchy and domination.
It is to racism, and not the theory of race, that the Dalit movement as a whole seeks to link it’s condition and demand world understanding, international condemnation and, yes, support. There may be individual voices within the movement who hark back to the issue of Dalits being a race but for the moment, at least, the overwhelming Dalit position goes beyond it. (Incidentally, theorists associated with the movement intimately, especially Thorat of the JNU, are emphatic in pointing to Dr BR Ambedkar’s own rebuttal of the Brahmanical theory of race that justifies the exclusion and brutalisation of the atishudra.)

The Dalit campaign urges all people, political parties, civil liberties groups, human rights organisations, to address not the whys of caste but address it’s present day existence, manifestation and reality. What continues to motivate us as a people and a civilisation to segregate so brutally 20 per cent of our people and prevents us from lending support to their struggle?

Elected representatives across party formulations — RPI, Congress(I), CPI and the CPI(M) — have allied with the ongoing struggle for international condemnation of continued caste-based discrimination and exclusion. At the preparatory conference in New Delhi between March 1–4, former prime minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, former chairperson of the National Commission for Women, Mohini Giri, CPI MP D Raja, RPI MP, Ramdas Athavale, Congress MP, Praveen Rashtrapal, CPI(M) MP, Arindam Sen, all declared allegiance to the move for international solidarity.

Yet, in the wider section of the political class, the intelligentsia, academia, progressive groups and organisations, there has been a distinct tendency to stay aloof from the issue at hand. The general fragmentation of social movements could be one of the reasons for the exclusion of the Dalit issue and its specific demands from other struggles and also the misunderstanding of the thrust and focus of the Dalit campaign. But the distance and divide is also reminiscent of what happened 50–70 years ago, when the voices of Ambedkar and Periyar were drowned in the lead-up to the national struggle against colonialism, for freedom against foreign yoke.

Then as now, Ambedkar’s stance was deliberately misconstrued and ignored by the dominant discourse. Ambedkar had to bear the burden of being labelled a traitor simply because of his plea that the rights of Dalits, the ‘untouchables’, should be made a pre-condition for independence from the British. His own lived experience, of having to endure the humiliation of being treated as ‘impure’ even after his education at Columbia University, pushed him towards the demand for separate electorates. Today, an honest look at not just the plight of Dalits (see box) but also the exclusion of the Dalit issue from other struggles is a stinging reminder of the possible validity of Ambedkar’s position.

The questions raised by Ambedkar decades ago are relevant even now. They are questions about prejudicial and discriminatory methods of production and social relations, methods and relations based on principles of exclusion, denial and humiliation that have existed within the Indian sub-continent for 3,000 years before the British arrived. These centuries’ old practices continue to result not only in the creation of wealth and security for half of the population at the cost of the rest, but also in the distinct dehumanisation of a fifth. This state of affairs, sanctified by religious scriptures and practised in the name of caste, is not very different even today.

Why did the national movement not lend support to Dalit concerns? Was it an internal discomfort, a discomfort in dealing with and facing the reality and shame of caste, that reduced us to denigrate and label Ambedkar then and what impels us to resist the demands and support the Dalit movement now?
In the face of growing articulations from the Dalit movement,and demands putbefore the forthcoming WCAR, serious introspection is required over our resistance to the Dalit move to list the shame of caste, in facts and figures and to seek international solidarity and support. Our response is especially strange considering that in non–governmental circles especially, international solidarity on issues of social concern — for example, the iniquitous new economic regime under GATT, displaced persons by big dams, discriminatory labour laws, gender issues, peace and de–nuclearisation — is accepted practice. Why then is there such resistance to the idea of caste indignities being highlighted internationally?

The significance of the forthcoming conference should not be underrated. The abolition of apartheid in 1991 did not, of course, immediately result in the transformation of South Africa into an egalitarian society with an equitable distribution of resources. But the discrediting and abolition of such a discriminatory system within South Africa was largely due to international pressure and support.

The world has seen, before and since, a variety of exclusions, xenophobias and intolerances that have resulted in the genocide of different sections of the people. The plight of Bosnia and the Bosnian people in the very heart of Europe is an example. It will be interesting to see where and how that issue gets representation, if at all. The orchestrated genocide of the Iraqi and Afghani people suffering exclusion, death and poverty as a result of the unjust UN–imposed sanctions ought to find some space in the deliberations if at all the WCAR is intended as an event meant to convey a serious commitment to the issues under deliberation. Caste–based discrimination goes back thousands of years and it is time it receives world condemnation.

And what of the other sharp and very real intolerances that have emerged in South Asia and even Southeast Asia? Can we honestly look at South Asia in the context of the theme of the Global Conference and not reflect on or highlight the intolerances that have so sharply surfaced in the name of religion?
The crude destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas recently cloaks what the terror of the Taliban means to it’s own people especially women. In India we have been witness to the insidious movement of the Hindu rightwing, which in the name of Hindutva is manipulating the individual faith of millions to legitimise a religion–based nationalism and destroy democracy. Strife and sectarian violence within Pakistan are testimony to the failure of religion–based nationalism. Bangladesh that fought a secular liberation struggle for independence from Pakistani Punjabi domination is today grappling with it’s own demons in the garb of Islamic fanatics. Farther east, for the past three years Indonesia has been torn apart as ethno–religious strife (between Muslims and Christians) poses a serious threat to the polity.

Can we from South Asia really speak at the ‘World Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances’ without any mention of the intolerances and xenophobia being created in our part of the world in the name of faith?

Caste in the United Nations

The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 referred to race, colour gender and religion but not caste as a basis or source of discrimination.

For many years, UN bodies and international covenants, conventions such as ICCPR, ICESR, ECERD and CEDAW and ILO omitted any reference to caste. As a result, Dalits could only make little use of the space offered by human rights bodies to raise the issue of caste-based discrimination.

It was the ECERD committee in 1996 (whose convention has been ratified by India in 1969) that for the first time made explicit reference to caste discrimination, untouchability and the scheduled castes.

On September 17, 1996, the concluding observation of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ECERD) was “that the situation of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes falls within the scope of the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” and that the term “descent” contained in Article 1 of the convention does not refer solely to race, and encompasses the situation of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. (Document ECERD/C/304/Add.13). The present demand emanating from the Dalit movement for human rights that is being strongly resisted by the Indian government is an echo of the progress already made within international covenants and the law.

In 1996 and ‘97, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial discrimination had requested a visit to India to “evaluate the situation (of untouchables) in co-operation with the government and the community concerned.” The Indian government has, to date, refused the request for a visit.

The CEDAW committee, in its final report, 2000 had mentioned, “The committee considers (that) such social practices as the caste system present major obstacles to the implementation of the convention.”
The 52nd UN sub–commission in Geneva in August 2000 unanimously passed a resolution commissioning expert member Rajendere K Goonasekere to prepare a working paper on ‘discrimination based on descent’. The objectives of the report were to a) Identify communities who continue to experience discrimination based on occupation and descent; b) Examine existing constitutional, legislative and administrative measures for the abolition of such discrimination c) Make any further concrete recommendations and proposals for the elimination of such discrimination. The Indian government has opposed all these resolutions.

Archived from Communalism Combat, April 2001 Year 8 No. 68, Cover Story 1

Broken people

March 31, 2001

In 1950, the Indian Constitution abolished untouchability (not caste), which meant that upper caste Hindus could no longer segregate Dalits or force them to perform ‘polluting’ occupations. The reality, however, is that caste bias continues to run deep. Even the police and judiciary are not immune to it; they let caste atrocities go off lightly and unpunished.
A high caste judge in Uttar Pradesh got his chamber washed with the holy water from the river Ganges to purify it since the earlier occupant of the judge’s chair happened to be a Dalit.
A Dalit boy was mercilessly thrashed and died as a result. When the matter was being heard in the Gujarat High Court, the police prosecutor spiritedly defended the police action (the thrashing that led to death) saying, “My Lord, the law differs from person to person.” Subsequently promoted to the bench, the same prosecutor is today a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court.
A sessions judge charged with the murder of a Dalit youth still enjoys his position. The investigating officer is on record stating that the accused is interfering with the evidence in the case.
Allocation of jobs on the basis of caste is one of the fundamentals of the caste system. While within the caste system, the division of labour for the four varnas is not the most rigid, for the Dalits who occupy the ‘lowest’ caste category, it is caste and caste alone, which is the determinant factor for the attainment of social, political and economic rights.
A lack of access to education and training, combined with rank discrimination while seeking other forms of employment, has relegated Dalits to jobs like leather workers, disposers of dead animals and manual scavengers — all jobs that are basic become dehumanising when relegated to one section, forcibly. We have 8,00,000 manual scavengers in India despite abolishment of the practice in law (Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. Offenders, which include those who employ manual scavengers and those who construct dry latrines, are liable to punishment of a year in prison and fine in addition to prosecution under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). But the Act has been rendered toothless by the judiciary itself (see box).
In the Eighth Five–Year Plan, Rs. 464 crore was allocated for the construction of flush latrines in place of dry latrines and the rehabilitation of scavengers; the money is completely under–utilised.
A job as a manual scavenger is physically and mentally soul destroying. Most scavengers live in segregated colonies and are forcibly prevented from using common resources. At times, in one row of toilet there can be as many as four hundred seats that have to be manually cleaned. Even other scheduled caste people will not touch the safai karmachari; it is untouchability within untouchables.
In Gujarat alone, reported deaths of manual scavengers due to inhaling of carbon monoxide while inside a manhole was a staggering 20 over a year. In Mumbai, even today children are lowered into manholes and there have been deaths.
In 1995, the Commission on Bonded Labour appointed by the Supreme Court estimated as many as 1.25 million bonded labourers in Gujarat. This despite the Bonded Labour (Abolition) act, 1976, and the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Around 80-90 per cent of the bonded labourers are from the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.
Of the total Dalit population, 85 per cent live in rural areas. Presently, almost half (49 per cent) of the rural Dalit population are agricultural labourers while only 25 per cent are cultivators. In stark and shocking contrast, in 1961, 38 per cent of rural Dalits were cultivators and 34 per cent were agricultural labourers.
Only 31 per cent of Dalit households have electricity as compared to 61 per cent non–Dalit households. Only 10 per cent of SC households have sanitation while 27 per cent of non–SC households enjoy this facility. The state and socially dominant groups play an active role in denial of basic amenities. Electricity, sanitation and safe drinking water are provided in the dominant caste section but not in the Dalit colony.
SC persons in most rural areas have separate sources of drinking water.
Since the early 1990s, violence against Dalits has escalated dramatically in response to greater demands and awareness of rights’ violations. Between 1995 and 1997, as many as 90,925 cases were registered all over India as crimes and atrocities against scheduled castes. Of these, 1,617 were for murder, 12,951 for hurt, 2,824 for rape and 31,376 for other offences listed under the prevention of atrocities Act.
The abysmal failure of successive governments to provide free and compulsory education is a failure that has affected all sections, only Dalits proportionately more. So, two–thirds of the Dalit population is illiterate as compared to half of the rest. The literacy gap between Dalits and the rest of the population reduced by a bare 0.39 per cent between 1961 and 1991.
Dalit enrolment in the year 1993 at the primary level was a low 16.2 per cent while among non-SCs, it was 83.8 per cent (annual report 1994–95, HRD, GOI)
According to two annual reports of the SC/ST Commission (1996-97 and 1997–98) the dropout rate for Dalit students was a high 49.35 per cent at the primary level, 67.7 per cent for middle school and 77.65 per cent for high school. The factors behind dropout rates include the compulsion to work. But abusive treatment of Dalit children is increasingly being recorded as a significant form of discrimination.

Dalit rights are human rights — the campaign

March 31, 2001

The National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) was initiated in December 1998 by human rights activists working among Dalits and studying the effectiveness and implementation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

The campaign was launched by Dalit Ezhumalai, minister for health and family welfare on December 9, 1998; three days later, a delegation met President KR Narayanan with the documents that detailed the focus of the campaign.

Support was assured to the campaign from the then leader of the Opposition, Sharad Pawar and Ram Vilas Paswan (union minister for communications).

On December 13, and 14, 1998 an NCDHR delegation consisting of PL Mimroth (national convenor), Rajini Tilak, Attam Singh Bhatti and MP Chaudhary met Prime Minister AB Vajpayee, Lok Sabha speaker Balayogi, and leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi.

A ‘Black Paper’ was released from 15 states and Union Territories on December 8, 1999 in New Delhi; at the release function, Paswan gave the inaugural address and Ramdas Athavale, MP and secretary of the SC/ST Parliament’s Forum, gave the keynote address.

On December 8, 1999 the National Dalit Women’s Conference was held at which 300 delegates countrywide attended. Ms Veena Nayyar, member of the National Commission for SCs/STs gave the keynote address. The outcome was a Dalit women’s charter of demands.

December 9, 1999: Submission of 25 lakh signatures collected from all over the country in support of Dalit human rights.

The cross–party delegation consisted of Paswan, Athavale, Bhandaru Dattatheya, deputy minister for urban development and Bangaru Laxman (both Dalit representatives).

The demand was for the tabling of a White Paper in Parliament and declaration of the next decade as ‘Ambedkar Decade’.

The culmination of one set of the NCDHR’s activities was the National Public Hearing organised at Chennai in April 2000. A representative jury, consisting among others of former judge of the Bombay high court, justice Suresh, former judge, AP high court, justice Punnaiah, former judge, Patna high court, justice Amir Das heard 57 cases from 10 states highlighting 17 major forms of human rights violations. These included untouchability practices, denial of access to cultivation, grazing and ownership of land, rights of Dalit women, manual scavenging and continued state violence against Dalits.

Internationally, the Dalit rights campaign has included the formation and activities of International Dalit Solidarity Networks (IDSN), programmes undertaken by international human rights activists, advocacy and lobbying efforts at the UN level and in different countries.

‘Caste discrimination will not go unless the international community speaks up’

March 31, 2001

— Praveen Rashtrapal, Congress MP

At the preparatory meeting for the WCAR held at New Delhi recently, Praveen Rashtrapal, a Congress Dalit MP from Gujarat, made a forceful presentation on the utter voicelessness of Dalit demands in Parliament. He spoke to Teesta Setalvad in an exclusive interview. Excerpts.

You mentioned that there was lack of unity and impact of Dalit demands issue Parliament despite there being a fair number of Dalit members. Why is this so?
In the Lok Sabha, there are 79 SC members and 40 ST members; in the Rajya Sabha there are in all 18 SC/ST members). Still we are unable to bring the Lok Sabha to a standstill over substantive issues like land rights for Dalits or atrocities against Dalits.

For at least 20 years, we have had the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Members of Parliament Forum. But this forum is largely inactive. Only recently have we begun to reactivate the forum. But at the root of the problem is how all parties, whatever the ideology, have treated the Dalit issue. Among Dalit representatives, too, the tendency has been to limit ourselves to issues concerning the while-collar Dalit – the issue of reservations – at the cost of issues concerning 70 per cent of the Dalit population – land rights, access to basic amenities, atrocities perpetrated consistently against our population.

How does this state of affairs continue?
It is a bitter testimony to the fact that whatever the party, whether it is the Congress that I belong to or others, a deep-rooted caste bias has influenced all programmes. The worst type of atrocities against Dalits in Gujarat has taken place during earlier regimes as much as during the reign of the BJP.

For example, look at two similar cases of atrocities under two different regimes, Congress and BJP. In 1980, two Dalits were burnt to death in Billia village, near Sidhpur in Patan taluka. Following this ghastly incident, the government directed that a new residential colony for Dalits be constructed on the Ahmedabad-Palanpur highway.

But what has happened? The magistrate acquitted those guilty of arson and murder and the state government did not go in appeal. Until today, the Dalits of the village live in slums, while others have occupied the colony built for them 20 years ago!

Just after Diwali last year, from New Year’s Day, Dalits from Tokrala village (Surendranagar) were attacked by armed Rajputs from Gedhi village; until today, the culprits have not even been arrested.

Among Dalit representatives, too, the tendency has been to limit ourselves to issues concerning the white collar Dalit – the issue of reservations – at the cost on issues concerning 70 per cent of us

What is the SC / ST MP Forum supposed to do?
It was set up during Mrs Gandhi’s regime when Yogendra Macwana was Union minister. As I said before, it has not been very effective. But we have recently tried to revive it. We have submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister making significant demands for the rural section of Dalits. These include the demand for land to the landless SCs. We have recently unearthed government figures to show that six crore acres of land in the country is wasteland: cant this land be converted to cultivable land? We have demanded 10 acres each to every SC family.

Another important demand relates to monies earmarked by the Planning Commission for the Special Component Plan (SCP) and the Tribal Sub-Plan. These are large allocations made by the Centre to be matched by respective state governments and are specifically earmarked for welfare measures for SCs (under the SCP) and STs (under the TSP). But because of deep-rooted caste bias, they have never been utilized for the purpose intended.

Major defaulters have been state governments who simply do not allocate the amount they are obligated to do. For example, under the last plan, Andhra Pradesh was required to allocate Rs. 250 crore to match the Centre’s contribution; it did not. Our demand, therefore, is that the Prime Minister monitors the implementation of the SCP and TSP effectively and in a time-bound manner.

Yet another demand relates to the issue of disinvestments by governments in the public sector undertakings (PSUs). This will severely snatch away employment in PSUs guaranteed through reservation to Dalits. Our demand to the government, therefore, is not to disinvest more than 49 per cent of equity so that controlling and decision making powers, including retention to reservation, remain with government. If that is not possible, we have asked for a new central legislation to ensure that all units in the private sector, particularly those that have been turned over to the private sector by disinvestments, are compelled to implement the policy of reservation even after change of ownership. These are only some of the demands.

Do you support the Dalit demand that caste-based discrimination be raised at the forthcoming WCAR?
How else will caste discrimination ever be removed? Did apartheid against blacks go until the international community intervened? Besides caste bias here is so deep-rooted; it affects all structures and organisations. Dalit rights are not regarded as human rights at all. Human rights organisations would happily fight for the rights of prisoners but not so easily for the rights of Dalits.

Do you know that despite the existence of the POA, 1989, the judiciary has worked in unison to contravene the provisions of that law? Under the Act, there is no provision for bail; yet, in every single case since 1989 all those accused of atrocities under the law are released on bail! Should not the Bar Associations be raising this question? There are also few convictions by judges under this law.

Should the Haj subsidy go?

February 28, 2001

Yes, say a large number of Muslims. But what about the mahakumbh
and Amarnath yatra, others ask.

Dear Zaka, I hope all is well with you. You will doubtless be surprised to find a Rs.10 note enclosed with this letter. This is a loan I took from you nearly 35 years ago. As I intend to go for haj this year (Inshaallah), I am clearing all my debts. Things were so bad for me between 1964 and 1972 that I was hardly in my senses. Then, when it got better, I partly felt embarrassed returning such a tiny sum; partly distance was the excuse. In any case, please forgive me for my negligence. And please pray to Allah that he accept my haj. Ameen.
AU Siddiqui, Mira Road, Thane, Mumbai.

(A letter that ‘Zakabhai’, the proprietor of Fourways Travels, Mumbai, received from his long lost friend several months ago).

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal want the government of India to stop its subsidy to haj pilgrims. Last month, the BJP-led Union government decided to hike the subsidy amount by over Rs.900 per haji compared to the amount paid last year. At Rs.20,000 per pilgrim, the subsidy for 72,000 hajis cost the government a total of around Rs.148 crore.

Not surprisingly, the announcement was greeted with the following from the national convenor of the Bajrang Dal, Surendra Jain: “If this is not vote bank politics, then why are they not extending the subsidy to Mansarovar (China) and Nankana Sahib (Pakistan) pilgrims.” While castigating his own saffron sibling, Jain also “appealed” to the “Muslim community” not to avail of the “extravagant” subsidy.

In support of its oft-repeated demand, the sangh parivar has found a formidable ally — Saudi Arabia. A report published in the February 26 issue of The Indian Express quotes both the Saudi ambassador to India, A. Rahman N. Alohaly, and the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al-Faisal, trying to impress upon the Indian delegation accompanying India’s foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, during his tour of Saudi Arabia in January, that any state subsidy for haj pilgrimage is “wrong”. “Our ulema will help you in explaining to your people that the subsidy goes against the spirit of the Shariat,’’ Al–Faisal reportedly told the Indian delegation.
Quick on the uptake, the VHP’s senior vice–president, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, wrote to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and, quoting the Saudi viewpoint, demanded immediate withdrawal of the subsidy. “Even the ulema of Mecca have said that taking subsidy for Haj was un-Islamic and robbed (it of) the very purpose of undertaking the pilgrimage,” he cooed.

It should not be surprising if sooner or later, the sangh parivar even starts citing (and why not?) the example of Pakistan. While disposing of a petition before him in 1997, justice Tanvir Ahmed of the Lahore High Court had ruled that any expenditure defrayed by the government in subsidising hajis was contrary to the Shariat and therefore, wrong. Since then, the Pakistani government has stopped all subsidies for haj pilgrimage. Confusing as it might seem, while the Saudi orthodoxy and neighbouring Pakistan under growing Islamic fundamentalism find haj subsidy un-Islamic, secular India now under increasing saffron sway persists with the subsidy and the quantum keeps growing with every passing year.

But what might come as an even greater surprise for Hindutva, a very large section of Indian Muslims – from the ulema to Islamic scholars to intellectuals to ordinary citizens – believe that only that haj is acceptable to Allah the entire expense of which comes out of the personal finances of the haji concerned. While speaking to Communalism Combat, a large number of Muslims, cutting across the Mr.—moulvi divide expressed themselves in favour of the haj subsidy being scrapped by the government of India.

The letter of AU Siddiqui cited at the beginning of this report, as also the account of Mohamad Amin Khandwani, former chairman of the all-India Haj Committee and currently chairman Maharashtra State Minorities Commission (see box) are eloquent testimony to the punctiliousness of a very large number of Muslims on the question of haj.
Such qualm about whose money is spent on haj is part of a widely prevalent Muslim belief. This is evident from the fact that none less than the editor of Muslim India and former MP, Syed Shahabuddin, has consistently demanded for the last 15 years that the government of India phase out the haj subsidy. “I have told successive Prime Ministers of the country that this haj subsidy is there because of their political need; it has never been our demand. No Muslim leader has ever demanded subsidy”, Shahabuddin told CC in a telephonic interview.
When newspapers reported the 1997 Lahore High Court judgement, castigating the Pakistani State’s subsidies for haj, Shahabuddin was quick to make xeroxes and despatch them to our own ministry of external affairs. But even swayamsevaks like Vajpayee, Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati in the BJP–led Union government have not had the courage to follow the example of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ Pakistan.

Shahabuddin, widely perceived as a rabble–rouser, is a politician whose career depends on building for himself the image of a champion of Muslim causes and the cultivation of Muslim votes. Would he risk being such a consistent opponent of haj subsidy if he had the least doubt that this would make him unpopular with the moulvi sahebs and the Muslim masses?

For an answer to the question, here is the gist of an exposition that Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh, secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and office bearer of a host of Muslim educational institutions gave to CC.
Ø Of the five essentials of Islam, three are obligatory on all Muslims. These are, kalma (the declaration that there is no God but one and that Mohammed is his Prophet), namaaz (prayers five times a day) and roza (fasting during the entire month of Ramzaan). The remaining two are obligatory only for Muslims with adequate financial means to fulfil them. These are zakaat (annual Islamic tax payable according to a prescribed formula depending on the financial status of a Muslim) and haj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

Ø Haj is obligatory, only once in a lifetime and only for those Muslims who are both physically capable of undertaking the journey and have the adequate financial capacity. It is not obligatory for others. The issue of adequate financial ability has also been clearly specified.

Ø The money needed for the performance of haj should come out of one’s own legitimate earning or possession and the amount should be sufficient to meet the entire expenses to be incurred on the performance of haj. Among other things, this includes the entire travel expenses, whatever the mode of travel.

Ø Before embarking on haj, a Muslim pilgrim must ensure that he leaves enough money behind for the expenses of all his dependants during the entire period that he is away. Further, on his return he should be sure of adequate resources to maintain his current standard of living for at least the next six months.

Ø If there are pending family obligations (for example, if daughters are of marriageable age), they must be fulfilled before one plans a haj pilgrimage.
Ø All pending personal loans must be settled before one takes stock of one’s financial ability to perform haj.
In view of all these stipulations, for Shaikh saheb, haj subsidy is nothing but “bheek ka paisa” (alms) which is “no good” for haj. “The position in Islam is very clear. If I do not meet the required conditions, haj is not obligatory for me. Moreover, the most important consideration before Allah is my niyat (intention). If I sincerely desire to perform haj but do not have the means to do so, Allah will still grant me all the rewards due to a haji. On the other hand, if I perform a haj merely for show, it is useless before Allah. No, there is nothing wrong if the government withdraws this bheek ka paisa for haj,” he categorically asserts.

Is haj subsidy un–Islamic, then? If an entire array of Muslim ulema, scholars, intellectuals and ordinary Muslims — stretching from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to India — are so clear that this is so, shouldn’t Indian Muslims themselves ask the government to discontinue the subsidy or at least refuse to avail of it? The problem is that there are also a fair number of important personages who support the existing government practice on grounds that range from simple opportunism, to rationalisation on grounds of communal parity, to statements of principle.
The let-it-be argument: “Chodiye bhi. After all, if some Muslims are benefiting, why rake up the issue? Who benefits if the subsidy is withdrawn?” A variant: “How can you blame the ordinary Muslim going on pilgrimage? He is keen to go to haj, the government–appointed Haj Committee says pay so much for air travel, and he pays it. How is the poor man supposed to know anything about government subsidy? So how can anyone say that his haj will not be accepted Allah?”

The communal parity argument: “The VHP claims only Muslims benefit from subsidy. But if not subsidy on airfare, what about the crores that the government regularly incurs on logistical support to help Hindu pilgrims reach highly inaccessible places like Mansarovar (in China) or Amarnath (in Kashmir)? And what about the actual expenses incurred on the recently concluded mahakumbh at Allahabad?” (According to Shahabuddin, the UP government spent Rs.150 crore, while the Centre provided another Rs 50 crore for the mahakumbh).
The issue is further complicated because, as in case of the uniform civil code debate, the campaign is being led not by secularists or ordinary citizens but by blatantly communal Hindutvavaadis.

“I totally agree that subsidy – as different from discounts that are normal for flights chartered by any group — for haj is un–Islamic and I would appeal to Muslims not to avail of the government subsidy. But if someone demands that the government scrap the subsidy, I would say that any financial benefit — including the tax benefit to available only to Hindus according to the Hindu Joint Family system — given to any religious community must also be scrapped,” argues businessman, politician and community leader, Ghulam Mohammed Peshimam.
The man-does-not-live-by-bread-alone argument: Interestingly, the strongest pro- subsidy argument was forwarded by Muslims who claimed simultaneously that such a practice was neither un-Islamic, nor contrary to the principles of a secular state. Fuzail Jaffrey, editor of the Urdu daily published from Inquilab, is one of them.
Jaffrey told CC: “I am by no means a shariah expert. But as a laymen I do not see anything wrong with the state subsidising airfare for haj or money for maintenance of temples. I don’t see this in Hindu Muslim terms; I don’t see why Muslims should feel guilty or defensive about it. After all, doesn’t our secular state also provide financial support to many temples in the country? And what about state aid to educational institutions like madrassas, pathshalas and Vidyapeeths run by religious bodies? Should the state stop supporting all of them? If it does so, haj subsidy will also go along with everything else”.

Senior advocate, legal advisor to the Bohra head priest Syedna Burhanuddin and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Yusuf Muchchala, is equally unrelenting in his defence of financial support by the state for haj as much as or for mahakumbh or for the temples maintained by the Travancore Dewasvom Board in Kerala and Tamil Nadu as provided for in the Indian constitution itself (Article 290 A). According to him, a deeply religious society like India has wisely opted for the secularism model adopted by an equally religious Ireland, instead of the erstwhile Soviet (anti-religious) or American (aloof from and indifferent to religion) models of secularism. “Muslims would be deeply hurt if the subsidy is withdrawn simply because of the naked communal demand of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal,” Muchchala told CC.

If neither Jaffrey nor Muchchala lay any claim to being Islamic experts, none less than the president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi, too, finds nothing un–Islamic in haj subsidy. In a telephonic interview to CC from his Patna residence, Maulana Qasmi lent the authority of a theological heavy weight to the ‘Islamic-cum-secular’ argument in favour of state subsidy for religious activities.
Remember the ‘sarkari peshimams’ scheme: When contacted telephonically at his Nagpur residence for his comments, Maulana Abdul Karim Parekh, treasurer of the AIMPLB, recipient of the Padma Bhushan award on Republic Day this year and a man reputed to hold ‘moderate’, ‘earthy’, ‘practicable’ views, dodged a direct response to the subsidy controversy. Instead, he chose to recount how the ulema were not at all amused by former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s attempt to win over the entire constituency of peshimams who lead prayers in mosques across the country. The ulema believed that here was an attempt to convert lakhs of moulvis throughout India into ‘sarkari peshimams’ or servants of the powers that be.

“I told Rao that if such state largesse was extended to Muslim clerics, surely priests from other religions would legitimately stake their claim, too? OK, girjaghars and gurdwaras are relatively better off, so maybe Christians and Sikhs will not press their demand. But I asked Rao whether he had given any thought to how easy it was to set up temples overnight and what the government would do if lakhs and lakhs of Hindu priests, too, demanded salaries from the state. Rao smiled knowingly and that was the end of the scheme in–the–making for India’s peshimams”.
Is there a moral contained in this real life story that Maulana Parekh chose to recount of his own volition? Was the good maulana subtly suggesting that there is a connection somewhere between the question of subsidies for haj and Rao’s aborted salaries for peshimams scheme? That, apart from the Islamic and secular dimensions of the subsidy issue, there is also the need to consider the political dimension of issues, specially in the context of growing competitive communalism and Hindutva’s sustained drive towards majoritarian politics in India?
What Maulana Parekh really intended is a matter of conjecture. But Maulana Qasmi was head on when asked whether continuing haj subsidy adds bite to Hindutva’s “Muslim appeasement” propaganda. And, therefore, would it not be better if as a matter of political strategy as much as a matter of secular principle, Muslims themselves demanded an end to all state support for purely religious activity. No, was Maulana Qasmi’s response. “The ‘Muslim appeasement’ bogey is raised even when Muslims raise legitimate demands. Should Muslims stop raising even their legitimate demands?”

How, in the maulana’s view, should Muslims react if the government were to decide on scrapping the haj subsidy? “Well, why should we tie our hands right now. If such a situation arises, the time and the then prevailing circumstances will govern our response”, came the answer.
Given such sharply divergent views within the community, should the ordinary Muslim accept or refrain from accepting the haj subsidy as suggested by Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh Ghulam Mohammed Peshimam, Islamic scholar, Asghar Ali Engineer and numerous other Indian Muslims, not to mention the Saudi and Pakistani perspective on the issue?

It is a question that exasperates people like Peshimam and Hisamul Islam Siddiqui, editor of the Urdu/Hindi bilingual weekly, Jadeed Markaz, published from Lucknow. “Our ulema are fully aware that this issue continues to simmer and Hindu communal bodies are fully exploiting it for their purposes. Why can’t they sit together, deliberate on the issue and come to some consensus on whether Muslims should support or oppose government’s subsidy?” Others would argue that as in the case of Muslim Personal Law, the issue is far too important to be left in the hands of the ulema alone.

The secular argument: If opinion on the subject is divided among Muslims, the situation seems to be no different among secularists either. Nikhil Wagle, editor of the Marathi eveninger published from Mumbai, Apla Mahanagar, is categorical: “We must move away from the Sarva Dharam Samabhav (equal respect for all religions) concept practised so far to that of a Dharam Nirpeksh (indifference to religion) secular model. I am totally opposed to any state subsidy for any religious activity, whether it is mahakumbh or haj”.

But another crusader for human rights, Justice Hosbet Suresh, has a contrary view that may surprise many secularists. “Of course, the state must be secular, but can one ignore or deny citizens their right to religion? I would not see the issue of haj subsidy as a religious issue but as a human, social issue. Who can decide that a human being’s need for faith is less important than his need for education, health services or a clean environment? If we expect the secular state to cater to his other needs, what is wrong in a state extending financial support to his spiritual needs as well? Of course, just as the argument for free education or free health is in support of those who cannot afford it, I would say that similarly in religious matters, state assistance should be strictly need based and non–discriminatory”.

The need–based caveat is something that people like Yusuf Muchchala and Fuzail Jaffrey readily accept. Even as the debate continues, could one not begin, right now, with a minimum common denominator — the demand that pending further clarification on the subject, state subsidy for haj and all other religious activities must strictly be need–based, not community-based?

But conceding the argument for a need-based subsidy is to concede that there is no rational basis to justify any haj subsidy. The government currently pays Rs.20,000 towards subsidising the airfare of haj pilgrims only because the airline is paid Rs.32,000 per ticket, whereas through proper negotiations the fare can be pegged down to around Rs.24,000. This would then mean that, if at all, only Rs.12,000 need be paid towards subsidy instead of the current Rs.20,000. In either case, an intending pilgrim must still put together at least Rs.65,000–70,000 for haj. By Indian standards this is a large sum of money, clearly way beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims. By what logic can anyone argue that a person who can spare/afford Rs.60,000-70,000 is incapable of raising another Rs.12,000 and is, therefore, deserving of subsidy on a needs basis?

More pertinently, even currently, there are well over a hundred travel agencies which offer an all inclusive haj tour package to hajis for the same Rs.65,000–70,000. Not only is there no government subsidy involved in case of the privately conducted tours, the tour operators even make a profit for themselves. (See accompanying box, ‘Sarkari haj is no cheaper’). In sort, private initiative leaves no room for any justification of subsidy on a needs basis.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2001 Year 8 No. 67, Cover Story 1

Sarkari haj is no cheaper

February 28, 2001

An estimated 1,20,000 Indian Muslims went on haj pilgrimage this year. Of this total, travel arrangements for 72,000 pilgrims were made by the Haj Committee – constituted under the Act of Parliament No. 51 of 1959 –, while the remaining opted for private travel agencies — well over a hundred private travel agencies offer haj tour packages. The government of India’s airfare subsidy is available only for hajis travelling through the Haj Committee. Incidentally, every haji who travels through the Haj Committee gets the benefit of highly subsidised airfare, no matter how rich he or she might be.
The major expenses involved in haj pilgrimage include airfare, food and accommodation in Mecca and Medina, compulsory dues payable to Saudi authorities and local travel in Saudi Arabia. The haj committee offers three different packages (Category I, II and III) depending on the type of accomodation a haji chooses — the nearer the accomodation is to Kaaba, the higher the accomodation charges.
Private travel agencies, too, offer 3–4 different packages along similar criteria.
The Mumbai–based Atlas Travel is one of the major haj tour operators in the country. Afzal Patel, the proprietor of Atlas Travel) told CC that for the recently completed haj, Atlas Travel offered a package tour costing Rs.85,000 (category I, the most expensive) and Rs.67,500 (category IV, the cheapest). Another, Asian Tours & Travels, offered an even cheaper package — from Rs.64,000 for the tourist class (cheapest) to Rs.88,000 for the super deluxe class. The packages are for a 40–42 days tour.
In comparison, the expenses incurred for the year 2001 by pilgrims traveling via the Haj Committee were Rs.82,295 for category I and Rs.72,143 for category III. In addition to this, the government paid Rs.20,000 per haji towards airfare. Taken together, the Haj Committee’s package for the pilgrims amounts to Rs.1,02,295 for category I and Rs.92,143).
Why then should an aspiring haji (category III package) pay Rs.72,143 in all to the Haj Committee and be obligated to the government of India for an additional Rs.20,000 when he need pay only Rs.64,000 (Rs.8,143 less) to Atlas Travel and not be obligated to the government of India even to the extent of a single rupee? Specially, considering that in the views of the ulema of Saudi Arabia, of the judiciary from the Islamic state of Pakistan and a very large section of Indian Muslims (ulema, scholars and intellectuals included), a sarkar subsidised haj may not be acceptable to Allah?
From the individual haji’s point of view, travelling through the Haj Committee has its side benefit because of the different nature of the packages offered by the Haj Committee and private tour operators. Like other tour packages, private travel agencies for haj, too, offer an all expenses covered point–to–point service. So, all that a haji opting for a private travel agency has to do is to report at an Indian airport on the scheduled departure time. From then until his return flight lands in India, everything — airfare, accommodation, food, compulsory dues to Saudi authorities, local travel is taken care of by the travel agency.
The Haj Committee package, on the other hand, works differently. This is how the break–up of Rs. 72,143 (cheapest package) worked out in the current haj season:
Out of the total amount, Rs.12,000 was deducted by the Haj Committee towards the subsidised airfare and Rs.500 towards service charges. The balance Rs.59,643 went towards purchase of foreign exchange worth 4,700 Saudi riyals (@ Rs.12.69 for one SRL). From this, the Haj Committee held back SRL 1,059 towards dues to be paid to Saudi authorities, SRL 1,200 for accommodation in Mecca and SRL 200 for accommodation in Medina. The balance amount of SRL 2,241 is handed back to the individual pilgrim. Out of this he has to spend SRL 300 for the sacrificial animal during Haj, leaving him or her with SRL 1,921 to pay for two–way Mecca–Medina travel and food expenses for around 40 days. Eating out, according to those who have been to Saudi Arabia, is quite cheap but most hajis from the lower income categories prefer to cook their own food which cuts costs even further. Because of this and depending on how long the haji stays in Saudi Arabia, at the end of the haj, he or she could be left with unused Saudi riyals which could be used for shopping in Saudi Arabia or to bring back to India and reconvert to local currency. Those familiar with haj pilgrimage claim it is not difficult to save up to SRL 800-1,000 if one chooses to live very frugally while in Saudi Arabia. Converted back into Indian rupees on return means, a haji travelling through the Haj Committee can return to India with around Rs.10,000.
Even when this amount is subtracted from the initial Rs. 72,143 paid to the Haj Committee, it means that the haji would effectively have paid Rs.62,143 to the Haj Committee as against the Rs.64,000 he would have paid to Asian Tours & Travels. In short, hardly any difference, not counting the fact that in case of opting for the privately organised tour, the haji has no worry whatsoever about the bother of purchases, cooking etc. for 40 days.
If the strongest argument for subsidised airfare rests on the ability of the poorer Muslims’ dream of haj, the above example shows up the fallacy of the argument. In short, this means that there is no rational argument whatsoever to support the claim for subsidy in case of the poorest amongst those going for (who in any case do manage to put together nothing short of Rs.60,000-70,000, no small amount by Indian standards). As for those who can pay the charges for more expensive packages, there is even less justification.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2001 Year 8 No. 67, Cover Story 2

Why the subsidy

February 28, 2001

According to Syed Shahabuddin, the government policy of subsidy for haj pilgrims was prompted by the steep rise in oil prices in the early ‘70s, leading to a big hike in travel fares across the board. The subsidy, Shahabuddin claims, was not in response to any Muslim plea or demand but the government’s own decision. The new policy was reportedly prompted specially in consideration of Muslims from the lower economic strata who traveled by ship. But since the airfare had also shot up steeply, the idea was mooted of a temporary subsidy for air travel, to be phased out over a few years. Not only does the subsidy continue till date, but the subsidy amount, per haji and in terms of total cost to the exchequer, has risen steeply over the years.
Through the ‘70s and the ‘80s, shipping companies finding their business less and less economic, gradually moved out of the business. As a result, more and more hajis have had to travel by air. The year 1986 was the last year when a passenger ship took pilgrims for haj.
In 1986-’87, Air India Chartered Ltd. charges for hajis were Rs.3,852, while the amount of government subsidy for the period is not available. With increasing airfare over the years, the amount the pilgrims paid for air travel (through the Haj Committee) was raised from year to year until 1992. But despite several hikes in IATA fare for international travel since then, the hajis’ share remains pegged at the same Rs.12,000 that was charged in 1992.
According to a newspaper report which the CC has not been able to independently confirm, in 1992, the government paid Rs.2,000 to the airline as subsidy. This year, while the hajis still paid only Rs.12,000, the government’s subsidy per haji shot up to Rs.20,000. In other words, the subsidy for haj has spiralled from 16.7 per cent in 1992 to a whopping 62.5 per cent now.
The Narasimha Rao government apparently saw this as one way of assuaging Muslim sentiments inflamed with the Congress government’s inaction during the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the countrywide riots that followed. Ironically, the two successive BJP-led governments, too, hiked the subsidy amount since 1998. The subsidy per haji this year was over Rs.900 more this year compared to last year. Not surprisingly, the Bajrang Dal and the VHP have accused a member of their own parivar — the BJP — of “Muslim appeasement”.
Not one of the large number of Muslims CC spoke to could offer any justification for subsidy at least in the case of those who can afford to pay themselves. The question of increased subsidy, however, has to be differently understood. For example, presently, the normal return fare on regular flights is around Rs.36,000. This year Air India has been paid a little over Rs.32,000 per passenger — a discount of less than 15 per cent on its charter flights. On the other hand, after discount for bulk bookings, private tour agencies pay around Rs.24,000 only. Mohamed Amin Khandwani, chairman, Maharashtra Commission for Minorities, who was the Haj Committee chairman between 1983 and 1989, claims that during his tenure, Air India and Saudi Airlines, used to offer a 30 per cent discount. Syed Shahabuddin who is well-informed on the subject argues that even today the airlines should be able to profitably run charter flights for hajis even after offering 33 per cent discount.
Were such a discount to be successfully negotiated, the airfare per passenger would work out to Rs.24,000 per passenger. In that case, the government of India would pay a subsidy of only Rs.12,000 per passenger, assuming that is should be subsiding haj in the first place.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2001 Year 8 No. 67, Cover Story 3

1...2,6762,6772,678...2,697 Page 2,677 of 2,697

‘Victory of secular forces’

Broken people

Should the Haj subsidy go?

Sarkari haj is no cheaper

Why the subsidy

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT